4.2 Review

Risk of Hypertension in Cancer Patients Treated with Aflibercept: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

CLINICAL DRUG INVESTIGATION
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 231-240

出版社

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-014-0174-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aflibercept is currently approved as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, and its application in other types of tumors is undergoing clinical evaluation. Hypertension is one of its major adverse effects with a substantial variation in the reported incidences and has not been systematically investigated. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from January 2000 to August 2013 and abstracts presented at annual meetings from 2004 to 2013 to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies were phase II and III prospective clinical trials of aflibercept in patients with any type of cancer describing events of hypertension. Summary incidence rates, odds ratios (OR), and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated employing fixed- or random-effects models depending on the heterogeneity of the included trials. A total of 15 trials with 4,451 patients were included for the meta-analysis. The summary incidences of all-grade and high-grade hypertension were 42.4 % (95 % CI 35.0-50.3) and 17.4 % (95 % CI 13.7-21.9), respectively. The use of aflibercept in cancer patients was associated with a significantly increased risk of all-grade (OR 4.47, 95 % CI 3.84-5.22, p < 0.001) and high-grade (OR 4.97, 95 % CI 3.95-6.27, p < 0.001) hypertension. The risk of developing hypertension with aflibercept was significantly higher than that of bevacizumab (all-grade: OR 1.93, 95 % CI 1.61-2.32, p < 0.001; high-grade: OR 2.06, 95 % CI 1.79-2.37, p < 0.001). The use of aflibercept is associated with a significantly increased risk of developing all-grade and high-grade hypertension compared with control. Close monitoring and adequate managements are highly recommended to decrease cardiovascular complication.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据